Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

And scientific papers provide summaries of scientific experiments. Since you cvan't actually do the experiments online, papers are the next best thing.

Quote:

Two-photon physics, electron diffraction, and atomic orbitals. They provide clear evidence that the electron does not get its mass from the Higgs mechanism, meaning the bump can't be the Higgs boson. Would you like me to elaborate? It's all horribly simple plain-vanilla physics. It might help if you watched Susskind's lecture. Pay attention to what he said about radiation in a box.

Very well. This should be interesting.

Quote:

Smartcooky: yes, that's a supporting statement. A lot of physicists are extremely skeptical of the Higgs mechanism, and have bet that the Higgs boson wouldn't be discovered.

Name them.

Quote:

With the announcement of its discovery they either have to pay up or cry foul, which they're reluctant to do because it would be very bad publicity for physics. For example see above re Gian Guidice, a CERN physicist who calls the Higgs mechanism "frightfully ad hoc" and "the toilet of the standard model". These guys are in a really difficult position.

No they're not. If they are right they are in an amazing position. They can provide the evidence to show why they are such good physicists and why the work of the CMS/ATLAS teams is wrong. It would make their careers and win them a Nobel prize.

Steven Hawking for one, Janet Conrad for another. See Higgs boson news leads physicists to settle bets: "It also prompted a worldwide settling of scores as physicists — inveterate gamblers — examine the data to decide whether it is time to pay up on longstanding bets about the existence of the boson, which has been the object of a 40-year manhunt."

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

No they're not. If they are right they are in an amazing position. They can provide the evidence to show why they are such good physicists and why the work of the CMS/ATLAS teams is wrong. It would make their careers and win them a Nobel prize.

There are issues, Tubby.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Very well. This should be interesting.

Yes, it will be. OK, let's take it one step at a time. Did you see the bit of Susskind's lecture where he referred to E=mc² and talked about radiation in a box adding mass to that system? Are you happy with that? You should be, because it's only what Einstein said in his 1905 paper Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?. If you open the box a little to let one photon out, it's a radiating body that loses mass, and the Higgs mechanism is not involved. Susskind said this.

OK so far? I wouldn't want to provide anything other than a careful explanation, supported by robust evidence and papers, that people can actually understand.

I want some confirmation as we proceed, edd. That way Tubby, who bumped this thread deliberately, can't get away with bluster saying I've given no evidence and have explained nothing. Are you happy with what I've said so far?

Steven Hawking for one, Janet Conrad for another. See Higgs boson news leads physicists to settle bets: "It also prompted a worldwide settling of scores as physicists — inveterate gamblers — examine the data to decide whether it is time to pay up on longstanding bets about the existence of the boson, which has been the object of a 40-year manhunt."

Here's what Hawking actually said about the bet:

Originally Posted by Hawking

"This is an important result and should earn Peter Higgs the Nobel Prize.

"But it is a pity in a way because the great advances in physics have come from experiments that gave results we didn't expect.

"For this reason I had a bet with Gordon Kane of Michigan University that the Higgs particle wouldn't be found. It seems I have just lost $100."

Clearly Hawking is delighted by the discovery and fully believes it has been discovered. If you follow the link from your own article you'll see that Conrad's bet was one she made (with odds of 10:1 in her favour) for a bit of fun at a banquet. Hardly compelling support in your favour.

Quote:

There are issues, Tubby.

?

Quote:

Yes, it will be. OK, let's take it one step at a time. Did you see the bit of Susskind's lecture where he referred to E=mc² and talked about radiation in a box adding mass to that system? Are you happy with that? You should be, because it's only what Einstein said in his 1905 paper Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?. If you open the box a little to let one photon out, it's a radiating body that loses mass, and the Higgs mechanism is not involved. Susskind said this.

OK so far? I wouldn't want to provide anything other than a careful explanation, supported by robust evidence and papers, that people can actually understand.

I want some confirmation as we proceed, edd. That way Tubby, who bumped this thread deliberately, can't get away with bluster saying I've given no evidence and have explained nothing. Are you happy with what I've said so far?

I'd have said if I had a problem at that point.

__________________When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz

Are you happy with what I've said so far Tubby? Linking to a Monty Python sketch isn't much of an answer. I will presume that the answer is yes, and you're fighting shy of saying so.

The next step is to take the step from radiation in a box to a electromagnetic standing wave in a cavity, such as a Fabry-Perot cavity. Are you happy that this standing wave adds mass to the system, and that this mass is nothing to do with the Higgs mechanism?

This is where that symmetry comes in. We know that before the electromagnetic wave or photon was trapped in the box or cavity it is massless, but it conveys energy-momentum wherein energy E=hf and momentum p=hf/c. We can perform Compton scattering with it to demonstrate this, along with inverse Compton scattering. The photon exhibits a resistance to our attempts to change its state of motion. If it didn't, it wouldn't exhibit the property we call momentum.

Still happy with all this Tubby? Like I said it's all very basic plain-vanilla physics.

OK, when we trap that electromagnetic wave in a box as a standing-wave, it still exhibits resistance to our attempts to change its state of motion. Only we don't call it momentum any more. You've probably guessed already, so I'll come out with iut. In a nutshell that symmetry is this: inertia is the flip side of momentum and the relevant transformation is a switch from its relative motion is c to its net relative motion is zero. Before we trapped it, the wave was moving at c say this way →. After we turned it into a standing wave, it's moving at c this way → and it's moving at c this way ←, both at the same time. It still offers resistance to any change in its state of motion, and thus adds mass to the system. You can still open the box, whereupon the photon zips out at c from a standing start, and you've got a radiating body losing mass. Alternatively you can keep the box closed and throw an electron at it. That would be akin to an Inverse Compton. However instead of accelerating the free photon in the vector sense of changing its direction whilst increasing its frequency, you're now accelerating the box, with the standing wave inside it, in the usual sense. In the reference frame of the box the standing-wave motion doesn't look any different, but in the original rest frame it does. Its frequency has increased.

Any questions? Do I need to clarify anything before we move on?

I have to go out I'm afraid. Take a look at the things I mentioned earlier and see if you can work out where we're going.

OK, when we trap that electromagnetic wave in a box as a standing-wave, it still exhibits resistance to our attempts to change its state of motion. Only we don't call it momentum any more. You've probably guessed already, so I'll come out with iut. In a nutshell that symmetry is this: inertia is the flip side of momentum and the relevant transformation is a switch from its relative motion is c to its net relative motion is zero. Before we trapped it, the wave was moving at c say this way →. After we turned it into a standing wave, it's moving at c this way → and it's moving at c this way ←, both at the same time. It still offers resistance to any change in its state of motion, and thus adds mass to the system. You can still open the box, whereupon the photon zips out at c from a standing start, and you've got a radiating body losing mass. Alternatively you can keep the box closed and throw an electron at it. That would be akin to an Inverse Compton. However instead of accelerating the free photon in the vector sense of changing its direction whilst increasing its frequency, you're now accelerating the box, with the standing wave inside it, in the usual sense. In the reference frame of the box the standing-wave motion doesn't look any different, but in the original rest frame it does. Its frequency has increased.

Any questions? Do I need to clarify anything before we move on?

I have to go out I'm afraid. Take a look at the things I mentioned earlier and see if you can work out where we're going.

This is all a bit... vague. Statements like "Alternatively you can keep the box closed and throw an electron at it" could mean almost anything. How about you demonstrate exactly what you mean with the use of relevant momentum/energy/motion/whatever equations? That's how I learnt physics the first time around and it worked pretty well. It should work here.

You're going to tell us electrons are made of photons, we're going to raise the usual objections and you're going to ignore them again?

I'm going to focus on standing waves. And I don't ignore objections edd. If you've got any objections to anything I say I'll be only to glad to address them.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

This is all a bit vague...

Don't you want a careful explanation, supported by robust evidence and papers, that people can actually understand? I'm giving you crystal-clear plain-vanilla physics fully in line with Einstein's 1905 paper and Leonard Susskind's lecture. Trap an electromagnetic wave in a box so that it's now a standing wave, and the box is harder to move because the wave resists your attempt to change its state of motion. Equations don't demonstrate this I'm afraid, if they did, you'd understand it already.

Everybody OK with this symmetry between momentum and inertia? I'll presume the answer is yes and move on.

OK, next, let's take a look at the problem that goes back to QED. It concerns two-photon physics, see wikipedia. See this innocuous looking paragraph in the wikipedia article:

"From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact through higher-order processes. A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple."

There's an issue here. And it isn't that we find what happens from experiment rather than theory. People at SLAC did the experiments that proved that photons interact directly, and people in optics have demonstrated that Light bends itself into an arc. Can you see the issue? Look again at the paragraph above. Ask yourself why pair production occurs, and the given answer is because pair production occurs. Spontaneously! Like worms from mud! This breathtaking omission is there because QED doesn't actually cover photon-photon interaction directly, and employs virtual particles instead. This "works" mathematically, but you have to remember that they're virtual particles. They're field quanta rather than real particles. The interaction is a field interaction, ina field theory. If you forget this, you start to create a problem by insisting that photon-photon interaction cannot occur because it isn't in the mathematics, even though it's right there in the experiment.

Does everybody understand this? And does everybody understand that it's of crucial importance to be clear about what's actually there and what's interacting with what? In our standing-wave example, the photon interacts with the box, not with the Higgs field.

Umm, Farsight - you do realise the Higgs mechanism is not responsible for all mass? So why do you think your photon in a box has anything to say about whether the Higgs mechanism gives an electron a mass?

With the photon-photon interaction mechanism I'm not sure what you're getting at. You seem to be overly concerned with how it is described in words, but the mathematics of QED isn't bothered about what language we use to describe it.

And yes I certainly have objections to you claiming electrons are made of photons - namely that you've never given a remotely adequate explanation of how this happens and how the properties of the electron arise from this.

__________________When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz

No you can't. Maths hasn't delivered understanding of this to either you or any other posters here. That's why I'm giving you the careful explanation that you can understand.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

No you're not. You're making vague statements and expecting me to agree with them. I don't know what "Alternatively you can keep the box closed and throw an electron at it" means.

Yes you do. You know what an Inverse Compton is. The fast-moving electron is slowed down and the photon is accelerated in the vector sense; it changes direction and gains energy. When that photon is a standing wave in the box the fast-moving electron is slowed down and the standing-wave photon and its box are accelerated in the usual sense. They weren't moving and now they are. That's not vague, now is it?

Originally Posted by edd

Umm, Farsight - you do realise the Higgs mechanism is not responsible for all mass?

Of course I do, I've said it enough times. See A Zeptospace Odyssey: A Journey into the Physics of the LHC by Gian Francesco Giudice. On page 173 he says: “The most inappropriate name ever given to the Higgs boson is 'The God particle'. The name gives the impression that the Higgs boson is the central particle of the Standard Model, governing its structure. But this is very far from the truth.” He also says the Higgs mechanism is “the toilet” of the standard model, and is “frightfully ad-hoc”. On page 174 he says: “It is sometimes said that the discovery of the Higgs boson will explain the mystery of the origin of mass. This statement requires a good deal of qualification.” He ends up saying “In summary, the Higgs mechanism accounts for about 1 per cent of the mass of ordinary matter, and for only 0.2 per cent of the mass of the universe. This is not nearly enough to justify the claim of explaining the origin of mass.”

Originally Posted by edd

So why do you think your photon in a box has anything to say about whether the Higgs mechanism gives , and how an electron a mass?

We'll get on to that. For now the thing to understand is that resistance to change-in-motion is what we call momentum for a photon travelling at c, and inertia for a standing-wave photon in the box. Like I was saying, there's a symmetry to it. Interestingly when you read A Zeptospace Odyssey Giudice waxes lyrical about the symmetry of the Standard Model, saying "the symmetry principle elegantly describes all the forces of nature".

Originally Posted by edd

With the photon-photon interaction mechanism I'm not sure what you're getting at. You seem to be overly concerned with how it is described in words, but the mathematics of QED isn't bothered about what language we use to describe it.

What I'm getting at is that photon-photon interaction definitely occurs right there in the lab, regardless of the mathematics of QED. And there is a definite issue with the language we use, because we end up claiming that photon-photon interaction occurs because of electrons that aren't really there because they're virtual, and that electron-electron interaction occurs because of photons that aren't really there because they're virtual. The mathematics of QED might not be bothered about this, but people are, their tax dollars pay the bills, and they aren't stupid. Hence it's important to describe interactions in better terms, in terms of the things that are demonstrably real and present, not in terms of abstract or virtual or hypothetical particles or fields. Once you do that with the knowledge that photon-photon interaction occurs, you see what Giudice was getting at.

Originally Posted by edd

And yes I certainly have objections to you claiming electrons are made of photons - namely that you've never given a remotely adequate explanation of how this happens and how the properties of the electron arise from this.

I've avoided that this time, we're focusing on standing waves. Can I presume you accept that an electromagnetic wave propagating at c has no mass and instead has momentum, and that a standing electromagnetic wave sitting there in front of you has no momentum and instead has mass? You might wish to adjust or qualify the wording a little, and/or refer to kinetic energy or energy-momentum or four-momentum or the mass of an electric field or mass-equivalence. But whatever your particular preference re the choice of words can I take it you're happy with the general point? It's only really a restatement of Einstein's E=mc² paper. Plain-vanilla physics.

No you can't. Maths hasn't delivered understanding of this to either you or any other posters here.

I explained to you why your stuff about pair production was wrong using maths and equations and such. If I can do it I'm sure you can. You claim to be much better than everyone else here after all.

Quote:

Yes you do. You know what an Inverse Compton is. The fast-moving electron is slowed down and the photon is accelerated in the vector sense; it changes direction and gains energy.

There is a rather excellent equation describing what happens too.

Quote:

When that photon is a standing wave in the box the fast-moving electron is slowed down and the standing-wave photon and its box are accelerated in the usual sense. They weren't moving and now they are. That's not vague, now is it?

This is mildly baffling. Are you saying that two photon physics in the lab disagrees with QED?

No. I'm describing the interaction in better terms, wherein field quanta are not confused with extant particles/waves/fields. Why are you baffled? You said the mathematics of QED isn't bothered what language we use. I'm merely using language that adheres closely to what the SLAC experiments demonstrate. What those experiments don't demonstrate is that a photon stutters through free space spontaneously changing into an electron and positron, which cannot move at c, and which always annihilate back to a single photon regardless of conservation laws.

Originally Posted by edd

Because the mathematics of QED might not be bothered about this sure as hell reads like it and it's quite the bold claim.

There's no bold claim here. It was you who said the mathematics of QED isn't bothered about what language we use to describe it. So what's the problem? Apart from Fermilab being under the cosh and funding being squeezed and physics graduates struggling to get a position whilst the world suffers a rising tide of mystic ignorance? I don't do what I do for nothing, edd.

Originally Posted by edd

No particular problem with that, but if you get to the conclusion you promise I'm sure there's going to be some problem I have with something else you'll be saying in the near future.

OK, good, symmetry is probably the most important thing there is. It's what underlies the "laws of physics", and this symmetry is crucial for the Standard Model. But anyhow, the next thing to talk about is electron diffraction and atomic orbitals in the context of standing waves. Uhhn, look at the time, I have to go to bed. But follow those links, and meanwhile I'll leave you with this golden nugget:

"The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves."

No. I'm describing the interaction in better terms, wherein field quanta are not confused with extant particles/waves/fields.

I would say there are no better terms than the mathematics, but as long as you're not disagreeing with that there's no problem. What you said originally certainly could be read otherwise, but if we've cleared that up then lets move on.

Quote:

"The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves."

I confess atomic physics is among my weaker areas of physics, but you can take it that I'm reasonably literate in it.

__________________When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz

What those experiments don't demonstrate is that a photon stutters through free space spontaneously changing into an electron and positron, which cannot move at c, and which always annihilate back to a single photon regardless of conservation laws.

The laws of QED, and conservation laws, and the whole works---are perfectly consistent with the way a photon moves through free space. When you write down the equations for the propagation of a photon, you do include its turning-into-a-fermion-pair terms (if you don't, you'll never get interactions right). If you follow through the calculation to see whether these loops perturb the photon mass or speed---they don't, because of the Ward Identity. If you follow through the calculation to see whether these loops perturb the magnetic moment of the muon and electron---they do, in a way that matches observations. If you follow through the calculation to see whether the photon can decay (via these loops) into other particles---it can't.

ETA:
Citations to theoretical scientific papers can be relevant "evidence".
If you make an assertion that GR does something then a reference to a paper (or textbook!) that states that GR does do that thing is relevant.

Did you see the bit of Susskind's lecture where he referred to E=mc² and talked about radiation in a box adding mass to that system?

Everyone should be happy with the standard physics that photons in a box add mass to that box.
This has nothing to do with the Higgs mechanism except as an example of the physics that leads up to the mechanism.

The next step is to take the step from radiation in a box to a electromagnetic standing wave in a cavity, such as a Fabry-Perot cavity. Are you happy that this standing wave adds mass to the system, and that this mass is nothing to do with the Higgs mechanism?

...Does everybody understand this? And does everybody understand that it's of crucial importance to be clear about what's actually there and what's interacting with what? In our standing-wave example, the photon interacts with the box, not with the Higgs field.

Yes we understand. This is your fourth post that has nothing about the Higgs mechanism

What those experiments don't demonstrate is that a photon stutters through free space spontaneously changing into an electron and positron, which cannot move at c, and which always annihilate back to a single photon regardless of conservation laws.

The laws of physics state that a photon moving through free space never spontaneously change into an electron and positron.Pair production

Quote:

Without a nucleus to absorb momentum, a photon decaying into electron-positron pair (or other pairs for that matter) can never conserve energy and momentum simultaneously. [1]

So no one would expect an experiment to show this. AFAIK no experiment has seen a violation of this.

The SLAC experiments showed that that photons interact directly just as expected (though a reference to the actual experiments would have been nice!)

RC: the points I've been making will comprise the support for the assertion.

To recap, posters generally concur with what I've said about the symmetry between momentum and inertia. A electromagnetic wave propagating at c exhibits a resistance to change-in-motion that we call momentum. An electromagnetic standing wave confined in a box exhibits a resistance to change-in-motion that we call inertia. You can easily see that opening the box lets the wave out, and the system is a radiating body that loses mass. For reference, here's a part of Einstein's E=mc² paper Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?. Einstein uses L instead of E.

Originally Posted by Einstein

The kinetic energy of the body with respect to (ξ ɳ Ϛ) diminishes as a result of the emission of light, and the amount of diminution is independent of the properties of the body. Moreover, the difference K0 − K1, like the kinetic energy of the electron (§ 10), depends on the velocity.

Neglecting magnitudes of fourth and higher orders we may place

From this equation it directly follows that:—

If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c². The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the more general conclusion that

The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the energy changes by L, the mass changes in the same sense by L/9 × 10²°, the energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes."

Note the kinetic energy of the electron above. There's an important clue about that in Compton scattering and pair production. I'll explain it in the next post.

Take a look at Rod Nave's hyperphysics for Compton scattering. You start off with the incident photon and the target electron at rest. The interaction occurs, and you end up with a photon that has been decelerated in the vector sense, and which has lost energy to the electron. The electron "recoils" or more simply, moves. It has gained kinetic energy from the photon. All plain-vanilla stuff. But if you now conduct another Compton scatter with that scattered photon and another electron, then perform another, and another, and another repeating ad-infinitum, you're left with no detectable photon at all. All of its energy has been converted to electron kinetic energy, and the photon has gone. That's because it's a wave rather than a billiard-ball particle. When you take away all the wave energy, you take away the wave itself. In this sense the photon is little more than kinetic energy in space.

Everybody happy with that? Again we can use different words and make refinements, but the general picture remains that the wave energy has gone into electron kinetic energy by virtue of conservation of energy.

OK, now look at pair production. Again see hyperphysics. This time the incident photon interacts with a nucleus, and is typically converted into an electron and a positron. Pair production can also be performed in two-photon physics, and can be used to create more than just an electron and a positron, but let's not go into that. A little of the wave energy is expended on the nucleus, but not much. In addition some of it goes into the motion of the electron and the positron, but that isn't particularly important. What is important, is that the photon, which is little more than kinetic energy in space, has been used to create an electron and a positron. So in a very literal sense the electron was made from kinetic energy. Without saying anything about what the electron is, we can be confident that the wave energy has gone into creating that electron by virtue of conservation of energy. We can be utterly confident that this "body" has an energy content.

Take a look at Rod Nave's hyperphysics for Compton scattering. You start off with the incident photon and the target electron at rest. The interaction occurs, and you end up with a photon that has been decelerated in the vector sense, and which has lost energy to the electron. The electron "recoils" or more simply, moves. It has gained kinetic energy from the photon. All plain-vanilla stuff. But if you now conduct another Compton scatter with that scattered photon and another electron, then perform another, and another, and another repeating ad-infinitum, you're left with no detectable photon at all. All of its energy has been converted to electron kinetic energy, and the photon has gone.

There might be just a teeensy problem with that very last scatter?

__________________When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz

Take a look at Rod Nave's hyperphysics for Compton scattering. You start off with the incident photon and the target electron at rest. The interaction occurs, and you end up with a photon that has been decelerated in the vector sense, and which has lost energy to the electron. The electron "recoils" or more simply, moves. It has gained kinetic energy from the photon. All plain-vanilla stuff. But if you now conduct another Compton scatter with that scattered photon and another electron, then perform another, and another, and another repeating ad-infinitum, you're left with no detectable photon at all. All of its energy has been converted to electron kinetic energy, and the photon has gone. That's because it's a wave rather than a billiard-ball particle. When you take away all the wave energy, you take away the wave itself. In this sense the photon is little more than kinetic energy in space.

Typically (depends on the energy of course) a photon will scatter once or twice and then be absorbed. A photon is a lot more than kinetic energy in space.

Quote:

OK, now look at pair production. Again see hyperphysics. This time the incident photon interacts with a nucleus, and is typically converted into an electron and a positron. Pair production can also be performed in two-photon physics, and can be used to create more than just an electron and a positron, but let's not go into that. A little of the wave energy is expended on the nucleus, but not much. In addition some of it goes into the motion of the electron and the positron, but that isn't particularly important. What is important, is that the photon, which is little more than kinetic energy in space, has been used to create an electron and a positron.

A photon is a lot more than just kinetic energy in space.

Quote:

So in a very literal sense the electron was made from kinetic energy. Without saying anything about what the electron is, we can be confident that the wave energy has gone into creating that electron by virtue of conservation of energy. We can be utterly confident that this "body" has an energy content.

We can say some of the photon energy (<50%) can now be found in the mass of the electron.

Take a look at Rod Nave's hyperphysics for Compton scattering. You start off with the incident photon and the target electron at rest. The interaction occurs, and you end up with a photon that has been decelerated in the vector sense, and which has lost energy to the electron. The electron "recoils" or more simply, moves. It has gained kinetic energy from the photon. All plain-vanilla stuff. But if you now conduct another Compton scatter with that scattered photon and another electron, then perform another, and another, and another repeating ad-infinitum, you're left with no detectable photon at all. All of its energy has been converted to electron kinetic energy, and the photon has gone. That's because it's a wave rather than a billiard-ball particle. When you take away all the wave energy, you take away the wave itself. In this sense the photon is little more than kinetic energy in space.

Everybody happy with that? Again we can use different words and make refinements, but the general picture remains that the wave energy has gone into electron kinetic energy by virtue of conservation of energy.

OK, now look at pair production. Again see hyperphysics. This time the incident photon interacts with a nucleus, and is typically converted into an electron and a positron. Pair production can also be performed in two-photon physics, and can be used to create more than just an electron and a positron, but let's not go into that. A little of the wave energy is expended on the nucleus, but not much. In addition some of it goes into the motion of the electron and the positron, but that isn't particularly important. What is important, is that the photon, which is little more than kinetic energy in space, has been used to create an electron and a positron. So in a very literal sense the electron was made from kinetic energy. Without saying anything about what the electron is, we can be confident that the wave energy has gone into creating that electron by virtue of conservation of energy. We can be utterly confident that this "body" has an energy content.